The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
-
Negative, my analogy is valid for any/every organization/set up/unit whenever there is more than one person. For the collective good some body has to be a captain/leader, and if there is none/or eveyone, (in a group) doom/chaos is inevitable.
siki
If decisions are for men,and only men..then women cannot head anything or even tell a man to do so and so..that happens with me all the time in my work,when I
m in a position of suggesting actions to be taken during work,they always bring me a female,even if my assistant is originally a man,because hes so "sensitive" to taking "orders" from a "woman"...
That hurts me and makes me angry..not because I lose the pleasure of giving orders to a man..but because I never intend to "give orders" to any one,but always suggestions in the most indirect ways I could think of..I grief because I appreciate man`s partnership while he always undermines mine.. -
Peace,
Sa'dah,
You have discovered a lesson in the GENERAL nature of the genders and their inter-relationships. Some men are more receptive to womens' suggestions than others (we all have had mothers whom we are told to respect and listen to) but most men have a problem with women weilding authority over them. ANd I think many women don't know how to handle that and (as with many men as well) handle the authority without being demeaning. And in my opinion men and women should NOT be put in these competitive environments with each other. It only leads to resentment and ill-will. Now we all can adapt to situations we don't like if forced to. But we find ourselves ever increasingly in GENERALLY unnatural environments, and it can cause more problems than need be. I don't think any "liberated" woman will accept the nature of this dynamic and respond accordingly and the times certain don't call for us to have more natural relationships with each other. Women IN GENERAL seem to lash back and attack (rather illogically and over emotionally) whenever it seems that the integrity of their gender is critiqued in any way. I rarely see men seriously defending our gender. Jokingly we do it all the time, but we know we can't vouch for all the other guys out there. I think a little man solidarity would be nice, but obviously not all men are good men. Cultures may vary in the levels of man solidarity, but it is never on the level of woman-solidarity.
We all just need to act like good drones and work together like a Borg society accordin to mainstream society. But that is breaking up our society and our families frankly. It's creating women who are unsuitable for relationships with men and it is causing men to rebel against taking on manly responsibilities which can be undermined and competed for by the one he is trying to care for. Or sometimes these men do not learn them at all, because they grow up feeling undervalued and not needed as men.
My observations have been that men are more principal/philosophy oriented and are more cool-headed in comparison, and women are more pratical- oriented (they want to see those earthly goods needed for survival) and will sacrifice all in order to survive, while also being more emotional and irrational in comparison. These are generals, there are always the grey individuals and everyone has their moments of principal/philosophy, emotion, cool-headedness and irrationality. But I see that strong (generally unprincipaled) survival instinct making women better workers in the 'cut throat' and 'do as your told' work environments we find ourselves in today. That leaves more principaled/philosophically oriented men in tough situations. Of course if your philsophy IS cut throat and do as your told then there's no problem. And in a society that undermines the role of leadership in men and gladly gives it to a woman if she is a better drone . . . Well, that is a recipe for disaster. The woman might see it as liberating but her personal relationships with men suffer greatly because of the outlook that has been encouraged for her to have. And men grow bitter and less tolerant, unless they have some good distractions going on (video games, sports, or they make good money and happen to be the leader in the situation which will mitigate some of the problems that would ensue were he on the underside of the coin).
But I think the Quran strikes a good balance in setting up the man as a leader in his family and in the community but also demanding that he have his ears open, be retrospective, look out for the interest of, and care for the women and children in his family and community as he would look out for himself (ba'dukum min ba'din). And I think the strengths and weakness that men and women have respectively lend towards a more successful family unit and society if a woman is obedient (or biblically submissive) to the men in her life. UNLESS God is on her side and not on the men's side. And in the case where the men disagree (brothers, fathers and grown sons). Well, whoever makes the most sense and has God on his side is to be heeded. But none of that honor-killing stuff. If my sister, daughter or mother were on the path to Hell, i have NO right to try to speed that up. All I can do is pray that they are guided and be there for them when they are in need out of respect for the bond of blood. I think women are to be respected as human beings and never abused. I also think women have valuable experiences that should be utilized where needed and heeded. But I do not think men and women should be competing against each other in society or within the family. And the Quran helps to strike a balance that is good for the men and the women who choose to follow its guidance. Those who don't choose to follow it, can do as they like. Unfortunately the socieiteis we co-exist in are usually non Quranic (sometimes even our very families belong more to these societies than to the Quran), and ARE doing as they like. But we have to resist the temptation to go with the status-quo and live the Quran in our personal lives at the very least. A Quranic community would help us live by the Quran in a better way, but I don't see that dream Quranic community coming along any time soon. Although I would love to see it one day. Until then I'll ask God for patience, ask Him to protect me from Satan and his friends and I'll keep on trucking, and trying to earn my place in Paradise when the Good Lord decides to take me.
I have no god but God. Praises be to Him! (I really see God as an 'It' but that is a linguistic lesson I don't want to give right now).
Example of a Muslim Community in the U.S. I'm proud of these brothers. They've been acccused of alot but none of it has stuck. In my opinion it's all just anti-Islamic paranoia
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Dr765NMvc&feature=related
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAAJi1y43hE&feature=related
http//www.youtube.com/user/Islamberg?ob=1
I'm proud of them because they were able to take the steps to get land and set up their own communities. They are a Sunni/Sufi group under Sheikh Jilani. Now I might have some issues over the role of the last prohpet and the hadeeth when it comes to the specifics. But I love the last prophet of God as well and I'm glad these guys got some sense and decided to build their own.
Godbless,
Anwar -
She should obey him. If she doesn?t like Allah?s arrangement for her, she can go marry an obedient man and be the maintainer/manager over him. Maybe that will make her life easier?
Does this mean God's arrangement for her was to obey a disobedient husband?
The husband is not supposed to be obedient. It is not his place to take orders from the wives. He is the one ?standing/establihsed? over them, maintainer/guardian over them, keeping them in line.
It does not mean that he must be a tyrant. The man can consent to his wives to make them happy. As long as it does not interfere with God?s commands. But it has to be established who is in charge. The husband should know his place in the family, and the wives and children should know theirs.
I really do not understand what's this "obey" me.
Me? Where did the ?me? come from? Tell me please.
You mean the wife asking the husband to not work?
Why not? If she earns much more than him, and one of them should take care of the little child or sick child. Why not him?
Because it is his responsibility to earn a livelihood for her.
-
Quote from Fahad on Yesterday at 094134 PM
Men.
Sorry, I meant, who is the subject of this verb "ata3nakum"?
Women from whom the men fear their nushooz. There is no point in demanding obedience from those already giving obedience, just like there is no point in forcing those who are already willing.
So the righteous wives are disobedient, and the unrighteous ones are obedient? Nice.
I did not say that. I said God did not describe them as "obedient".
It does not describe the other category as obedient either. It just says if they obey you, then do seek a way over them, i.e. do not take those three steps, just like the steps are not to be taken with as-saalihaat, because they are already obedient. It only makes sense.
And if obedience is so good that a righteous person cannot be described as "disobedient", why are you against men being obedient too?
Men also have to be obedient but to those to whom their obedience is due, i.e. the parents, (besides God and his messenger and the oolul amar), not to the wives.
-
As-salihaat , women who reconcile or reform. If the man is to maintain or manage the women, the women must be obedient; otherwise it will make reconciliation difficult. It will make his responsibility difficult. How can being disobedient help her reconcile? Thus the women are to reconcile themselves with the arrangement made by Allah for men to be maintainers/managers/care-takers/guardians over women and women to be obedient to men(in the context of a husband-wife relationship).
You see, the three steps the men are told to take are for women who go out of the line of being as-saalihaat.
If they go back to being obedient, that is if they reconcile with this arrangement made by Allah, then there is no need then to take those 3 steps.
You are mixing between salih and muslih. Salih is someone who does good thing such as charity.
More appropriately someone who does something to improve, repair, reform, fit, suit, order(as opposed to disorder).
As-salihaat do not compete with men as qawwamun/maintainers/managers but compliment them, they prefer their husband to be in charge.
What if God's arrangement was that the husband loses his job or becomes disabled? What world are you living in? What about women caring for their orphaned siblings or their poor family? Single mothers/widows? I just feel silly counting obvious cases. Are you seriously saying women do not support families consisting of men?
CAN she? Of course she can if the husband is not strict. If he is strict, she CAN risk her relationship if she thinks she can afford to.
Women can also work if they have no other option, for example in case of disability of the man of the house, as in 28/23.
No one can restrict orphaned women from working, who have no father or husband. But it would be better if they can get married and let the man work for them. It is a masculine role to earn a livelihood for the women.
I am living in the same world. I just try to see it through the lens of the Quran.
How would a son learn to obey his mother when his father is controling her life?
If he sees his mother not paying obedience where it is due, maybe he will not do it either.
-
Peace
if you let me interfere a bit,
obey implies order, the couple order/obedience means one is the chief and the other is the subordinate, subordinate means low-level, secondary, subaltern, terms that fit to the army or to the organization chart of a company for instance. Some of you think they fit to marriage also. I don't.
I don't know what the quran says, I read your different versions. Perhaps the myth version of the opening post is the true one, I can't know.
Appart form that, I wonder why ordering is so enjoyed by many, men and women.Greetings,
Elena -
The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
The believing husband and wife co-operate with mutual understanding and consideration. This originates from their innate believer personalities of being self-sacrificing, caring and understanding. There is not the slightest master-slave inclination in their relationship as they are devoted to Allah and take the Qur'an as their guide.
"One of His signs is that He created for you spouses like your selves so that you may live with them with affection and mercy - there are signs in this for people who reflect" (Qur'an 3021)
www.quranicpath.com | The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
Excellent point, AceOfHearts. Not only does the Qur?an make it clear that man and woman stand absolutely equal in the sight of God, but also that they are ?members? and ?protectors? of each other. The Qur?an does not create a hierarchy in which men are placed above women, nor does it pit men against women in an adversary relationship.
However, in spite of the Qur?anic affirmation of man-woman equality, Muslim societies in general have never regarded men and women as equal, particularly in the context of marriage. Muslim men have always had more rights and privileges than Muslim women, including even the right to kill their women. The man imposed on the woman an artificially narrow existence, both physically and spiritually.
Underlying the rejection in Muslim societies of the idea of man-woman equality is the deeply rooted belief that women, who are inferior in creation (having been made from a crooked rib) and in righteousness (having helped the Shaitan in defeating God?s plan for Adam), have been created mainly to be of use to men, who are superior to them.
The alleged superiority of men to women, which permeates the Islamic (as well as the Jewish and Christian) tradition, is grounded not only in hadith literature but also in popular interpretations of some Qur?anic passages, such as Surah 4 An-Nisa? verse 34. These are generally cited to support the contention that men have ?a degree of advantage? over women. Muslim men have been wrongly told that ?Men are the managers of the affairs of women because men spend of their wealth on women. Virtuous women are, therefore, obedient?? As soon as the issue of women?s equality is raised by liberal Muslims, the immediate response by traditional Muslims is, ?But don?t you know that God says in the Qur?an that men are ?qawwamun? in relation to women and have the right to rule over them and even to beat them??
It is assumed by almost all who read Surah 4 An-Nisa? 34 that it is addressed to husbands. The first point to be noted is that it is addressed to ?arrijal? (the men) and the ?an-nisa? (the women), which means that it is addressed to all men and women of the Islamic community. This is further indicated by the fact that in relation to all the actions that are required to be taken, the plural and not the dual form (used when reference is made to two persons) is found. Such usage makes clear that the prescriptions contained in this verse were not addressed to a husband or wife but to the Islamic ?ummah? in general.
The key word in the first sentence of this verse is ?qawwamun.? This word has been translated variously as ?protectors and maintainers (of women),? ?in charge (of women),? ?having preeminence (above women),? and ?sovereigns or masters (over women).? Linguistically, the word ?qawwamun? means ?breadwinners? or ?those who provide a means of support or livelihood.? A point of logic that must be made here is that the first sentence is not a descriptive one stating that all men as a matter of fact are providing for women. What the sentence is stating, rather, is that men ought to have the capability to provide (since ?ought? implies ?can". In other words, this statement, which popular Muslim culture and tradition have regarded as an actual description of all men, is, in fact, a normative statement pertaining to the Islamic concept of division of labor in an ideal family or community structure. The fact that men are ?qawwamun? does not mean that women cannot or should not provide for themselves, but simply that in view of the heavy burden that most women shoulder in childbearing and rearing, they should not have the additional obligation of providing the means of living as well at the same time.
Continuing with analysis of the passage, we come next to the idea that God has given the one more ?strength? than the other. Most translations make it appear that the one who has more strength, excellence, or superiority is the man. However, the Qur?anic text does not accord superiority to men. Using an idiomatic expression which literally means ?some in relation to some,? the Qur?anic statement could mean either that some men are superior to some others (men or women) and that some women are superior to some others (men or women). The interpretation that seems to be the most appropriate contextually is that some men are more blessed with the means to be better providers than are other men.
The next part of the passage begins with a ?therefore,? which indicates that this part is conditional upon the first if men fulfill their assigned function of being providers, women must fulfill their corresponding duties. Most translators describe this duty in terms of the wife being ?obedient? to the husband. The word ?salihat,? which is translated as ?righteously obedient,? is related to the word ?salahiat,? which means ?capability? or ?potentiality.? A woman?s special capability is to bear children, and she carries and protects the fetus in her womb until it can be safely delivered.
What is outlined in the first part of this passage is a functional division of labor necessary for maintaining balance in any society. Men, who do not have to fulfill the responsibility of childbearing, are assigned the functions of being breadwinners. Women are exempted from the responsibility of being breadwinners in order that they may fulfill their function as childbearers. Since only women can bear children (which is not to say either that all women should bear children or that women?s sole function is to bear children) ? a function whose importance in the survival of any community cannot be questioned ? they should not have the additional obligation of being breadwinners while they perform this function. Thus, during the period of a woman?s childbearing, the function of breadwinning must be performed by men (not just husbands) in the Muslim ?ummah.?
This division of functions is designed to ensure justice in the community as a whole. The two functions are separate but complementary, and neither is higher or lower than the other.
The end. peace
-
Salaam Truth_Seeker
Please forgive me if I say that your understanding of this verse is not different from that of "apologetic" traditionalists.
The key word in the first sentence of this verse is qawwamun. This word has been translated variously as protectors and maintainers (of women), in charge (of women), having preeminence (above women), and sovereigns or masters (over women). Linguistically, the word qawwamun means breadwinners or those who provide a means of support or livelihood. A point of logic that must be made here is that the first sentence is not a descriptive one stating that all men as a matter of fact are providing for women. What the sentence is stating, rather, is that men ought to have the capability to provide (since ought implies can". In other words, this statement, which popular Muslim culture and tradition have regarded as an actual description of all men, is, in fact, a normative statement pertaining to the Islamic concept of division of labor in an ideal family or community structure. The fact that men are qawwamun does not mean that women cannot or should not provide for themselves, but simply that in view of the heavy burden that most women shoulder in childbearing and rearing, they should not have the additional obligation of providing the means of living as well at the same time.
And this is exactly what traditionalists say (underlined). But this sentence IS a statement, and should be a valid one. To be valid, "rijaal" and not men only should really be providors over "nisaa'" and not only women. To understand the real meaning of rijal and nisaa, please refer to the usage of these words in the quraan.
The word ?salihat,? which is translated as ?righteously obedient,? is related to the word ?salahiat,? which means ?capability? or ?potentiality.? A woman?s special capability is to bear children, and she carries and protects the fetus in her womb until it can be safely delivered.
Does this mean that awoman who's not capable of bearing children is not "saliha"?
What about unmarried women? Who is to provide for them?The interpretation that seems to be the most appropriate contextually is that some men are more blessed with the means to be better providers than are other men.
...and at the end of the day, it's only men who are providors! What about women who are providors (and they are not a negligeable percentage)?
This verse should be applicable to all societies all the time. If we speak of males being the providors of females, can this be applicable outsde marriage? The verse does not start by couples or states any relation between those "ijaal" and those "nisaa" For example, it does not say (ar-rijaalu qawwaamuuna 3alaa nisaa'ihim men are providors over their woemn/wives). So, who's the providor for the unmarried, divorced, widows, children, old people, disabled..etc? Are they always the men?
Thus, during the period of a woman?s childbearing, the function of breadwinning must be performed by men (not just husbands) in the Muslim ?ummah.?
Quraan is for humanity, not a "Muslim Ummah". The verse, if read correctly, should apply naturally to any ummah. Making men the sole providor is neither logical nor factual, and it does not apply even to a "Muslim Ummah".
-
Salaam Truth_Seeker
Please forgive me if I say that your understanding of this verse is not different from that of "apologetic" traditionalists.
And this is exactly what traditionalists say (underlined). But this sentence IS a statement, and should be a valid one. To be valid, "rijaal" and not men only should really be providors over "nisaa'" and not only women. To understand the real meaning of rijal and nisaa, please refer to the usage of these words in the quraan.Hello, Samia. Perhaps what I wrote wasn?t clear so I will explain it a bit further. What I stated is that Surah An-Nisa 34 is not addressed to husbands as believed by most Muslim men, but rather the entire community ? both men and women. It does not say that women should not or cannot be the providers/breadwinners as well as men, but rather who is responsible for providing a means of support given the following when a woman is pregnant. That particular responsibility during that time falls on men. It is not about who is superior or who should be obedient. It is about what is fair and just. It is to prevent a situation where a pregnant woman is abandoned or left to fend for herself, without much support from the community. This surely does not constitute a just situation. If children are the wealth and future of the community, the importance of protecting the function of childbearing (and childrearing) becomes self-evident.
What Surah An-Nisa 34 is ensuring is that this does not happen. It calls upon men in general to assume responsibility for women in general when they are performing the vitally important function of childbearing (other passages in the Qur?an extend this also to childrearing). Thus the intent of this passage, which has traditionally been used to subordinate women to men, is in fact to guarantee women the material (as well as moral) security needed by them during the period of pregnancy when breadwinning can become difficult or even impossible for them.
Does this mean that awoman who's not capable of bearing children is not "saliha"?
What about unmarried women? Who is to provide for them?Samia, perhaps you skipped over this part
?Since only women can bear children (which is not to say either that all women should bear children or that women?s sole function is to bear children) ? a function whose importance in the survival of any community cannot be questioned ? they should not have the additional obligation of being breadwinners while they perform this function.?The verse is about ensuring that pregnant women will be properly cared for by designating men as providers during this time. It is intended to ensure justice in the community as a whole. It does not go beyond that, and it does not imply that women cannot also provide for themselves or their families. Most Muslim women I know do.
...and at the end of the day, it's only men who are providors! What about women who are providors (and they are not a negligeable percentage)?
This is the wording in most translations of the Qur?an I have seen; this is also the wording posted on Wikipedia
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. The Qur'an, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 34 (translated by M. H. Shakir)
This translation is completely off and really makes no sense. The piece parts just don?t fit together. It is ridiculously-translated verses like this that give people reason to criticize and not accept the Qur?an as the word of God. The part underlined is about some men having the means to be better providers, not about God making men superior to women (as it has traditionally been explained). Since it goes without saying that human beings must procreate for the human race to continue, this verse is about the division of functions pertaining to this to ensure justice in the community, and more so than anything else, to ensure justice for women by not subjecting them to abuse and hardship. It does not imply that women cannot or should not provide for themselves or others.
So, no, Samia, it?s not only men who are providers. We all know that, and I?m sure that was the case back then, too. Since the Qur?an makes it clear that men and women stand absolutely equal in the sight of God, that is the interpretation that seems most appropriate for that particular verse which, again, is about ensuring that pregnant women will be properly cared for by designating men as providers during the time of childbearing.
This passage is about caring for and protecting pregnant women, just as the distorted verse which now gives men the right to marry up to 4 girls/women of their choosing (usually young girls) was originally intended to protect and care for the orphans/fatherless children by marrying their mothers/widows. Again, the intent of this passage, which has traditionally been used to subordinate women to men, is to guarantee women the security needed by them during a period of time when breadwinning can become difficult or even impossible for them.
Quraan is for humanity, not a "Muslim Ummah". The verse, if read correctly, should apply naturally to any ummah. Making men the sole providor is neither logical nor factual, and it does not apply even to a "Muslim Ummah".
If read correctly it does apply to any community as it is a guide to ensure justice in any community. I said ?Muslim ummah? since we are discussing the Qur?an and communities who follow the teachings of this book have always been known as Muslim communities. And men are not made the sole providers, but in that particular verse, they are assigned the functions of being breadwinners for the reasons already stated.
Samia, I?m just curious, what is your interpretation of Surah 4 verse 34?
peace
-
Is there not a single Muslim who truly understands verse 434? Truth is only found in cleaving to Quran!
(434) Men are the maintainers (qawwam) of women because Allah has made some of them excel the others and because they spend of their wealth. Hence the good women are obedient (qanitat), guarding the unseen which Allah has guarded. And those of them that you fear might rebel (nushuz), admonish them, and abandon them in their beds and beat (adriboo) them. Should they obey you, do not seek a way of harming them, for Allah is Sublime and Great!
In the mosque, at hutbas and discussion circles, we have heard tafsir (interpretation) of this verse over and over again. That men and women were created to different roles. That women should be provided for by their husbands, and that the verse in fact prescribes a greater responsibility and hardship on the men. That the path of the woman is obedience to her husband, because obedience is the only way a woman can be happy. And that the ?admonishment? of the wife is encouraged by God, in order to steer the woman to the right path, as if women are some kind of animal to be trained.
Do you question this verse? Question the tafsir. Question the tafsir a thousand times. The verse can be recited and memorized. But it is through constant engagement with prophecy that we may be guided to the light. And engagement only comes through questioning.
The question of this tafsir must be answered, for there to be a religion of Islam. Most of the people recite the Quran but understand little. In this age of exploration, Islam will not survive unless understanding is raised for the ummah. The people called Sufis possess the understanding, but it is kept secret. But in this age of exploration, if the secrets are kept from the wider people, Islam as a religion will not survive. The people are thirsty from their recitation, their throats are draw and they are now in dire need of water. But water will not be given unless the people ask so ask your questions! Ask and ask again, to save the ummah from its peril!
Let us now engage with this verse and see what deeper meaning is buried there for our benefit.
Men are the maintainers (qawwam) of women because Allah has made some of them excel the others and because they spend of their wealth. Hence the good women are obedient (qanitat), guarding the unseen which Allah has guarded. And those of them that you fear might rebel (nushuz), admonish them, and abandon them in their beds and beat (adriboo) them. Should they obey you, do not seek a way of harming them, for Allah is Sublime and Great! (Verse 434)
Men are the qawwam ? those who take care of and and provide for ? the women. The good women guard the unseen which Allah has guarded. The women to fear are those who create nushuz ? discord, hostility, dissonance. If you fear such women, leave them in their beds and beat, forsake or avoid them (adriboo).
Indeed! Because the secret of the Quran is identical to the secret of the Torah, understood by the Comrades of the Kabbalah.?Men? and ?women?, ?husband? and ?wife? mean something much more than the physical understanding we have.
Ancient knowledge has been remembered in the 20th century we each havemasculine and feminine aspects. Some call these aspects the anima and animus. But Torah and Quran teach the masculine and feminine aspects are more complex they are multiple eminations of God?s Names. The names God breathed into our bodies because we are made in the image of God. We all are have female and male aspects, in different balance. So these verses address humanity, physically male and female.
If this seems implausible, then it is so only due to the groups who so fiercely defend the literal interpretation. But this book is a holy book! It?s not an agony aunt column in the local newspaper! The folly oftheir tafsir verges on blasphemy, but they don?t understand.
In Kabbalah, the feminine name of God that we can realise within is called Shekhinah (Sakina in Arabic). The concept is complex, but is something close to the notion of the unconscious in psychoanalysis the field of language from whence all types of signification may play. But for the sake of our discussion, a simple way of thinking of it is that the Shekhinah is the source of all human creativity. If you paint a picture, then you engage with Shekhinah in a way. If you do an equation, similarly. But essentially, prayer and worship are acts of creativity, where we create an image to ourselves of God (something ultimately unimaginable). As we see with the acts of violence and hatred produced by people in the name of religion, clearly this creative name that has been breathed into us can be corrupted, if our creativity is not realised in a righteous fashion.
But if we are seeking God, then it is the feminine name of creativity, of Shekhinah, that we must realise within ourselves, the first gate that must be entered, in order to ascend.
So the feminine name comes first for the spiritual traveller. The Kabbalists call Shekhinah the ?poor girl?, because this emination is our creative spirit, and, on its own, is not capable of generating any light from God. Instead, it?captures? light from the higher name of God, Ti?fret, the source of prophecy. The words of the Quran itself (and the other holy books) derive from this name, that was realised to its fullest potential in men like Moses and Muhammed. Ordinary folk such as us cannot realise this name, but, through worship as creativity, we may find Shekhinah and, through worship as righteously guided creativity, our Shekhinah may be ?married? to Ti?fret, to prophecy.
In this sense, our feminine aspect is ?maintained? by the light of our masculine aspect. If this is done, then we may move closer to God. In this sense, the masculine aspect of our psyche are commanded to ?spend out of their property?.
The Shekhinah realised within us is righteous if it is obedient in ?marriage? to prophecy. That is, our creativities are ?good women?, ?obedient? and, importantly, ?guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded?. God and the higher spiritual realms are the unseen, but the feminine creativity within us can guard these realms. Guarding here means, protecting against the darkness that can fill our creative spirit if we do not guard this feminine aspect of ourselves, we can create evil in the name of religion, as we see happening again and again.
The last part of the first then is an instruction and warning about how to treat ourselves, how to treat the creative emanation placed within us. ?Those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek.? If you fear your creativity will leave you and move to the darkness, try to make it righteous again, into the light. If that doesn?t work, and your prayers move you to darkness still ? or if you encounter a sect that exchanges love for hatred ? or enter a mosque where death is preached instead of love ? then creativity has been corrupted. If this happens, then beat the unrighteous creativity into submission stop praying and walk away from that mosque. God willing, something better might come your way.
Mythopoetically, if our creative aspect turns unrighteous, becomes a creativity-in-discord, if the song we sing turns from a love song to disharmony, then our feminine aspect turns from Shekhinah into Lilith. Potiphar's wife, who tried to seduce Joseph to her bed, was Lilith. He was righteous and followed the path set down by this verse, because he recognized this potential seduction within himself and, instead of being tempted to join with it, left it at its bed and ran away, forsaking and avoid it (adriboo).
To those who question this verse, to those who question the tafsir of this verse the verse is placed there, especially for you! You indeed have been doubting the dark creative spirits of others who read this verse, take its surface meaning, and perhaps justify it to do evil (such as beating other humans). And you are doing (God willing) what the later part of the verse instructs walking away from that interpretation.
In your journey, always remember the first part of the verse the masculine light of prophecy will provide for our feminine aspect of creativity, and guide us to a righteous worship. So worship with us in this.
May the wife within be wed happily to the husband within, that we might find balance, harmony not discord, righteousness not adultery, and perhaps ascend higher in our journey!
FOR MORE OF THE TAILOR'S DOCTRINE, SEE
http//community.beliefnet.com/profile/3dd92c69ac3187b92fdda7f9763c4119
AND
http//thegoodgarment.wordpress.com/Tailor, interesting analysis but this is too complex for even my mind to comprehend...hehe You have over-analyzed the passage. The Qur?an was not intended to be a puzzle but a simple, straightforward guide on how to live life in accordance with God?s plan. If translated properly (and this must be stressed because many verses pertaining to women are not), it?s quite simple and straightforward. It had to be, given that it was intended for all of humanity to follow. Reading it objectively and in relation to text preceding and following it, as well as keeping in mind that the overarching theme is ?fairness? and ?justice? for all, will guide you to the correct meaning.
Also, just thought I'd point out that ?guarding the unseen?? is simply referring to guarding/protecting the unseen fetus in the womb. That's it, plain and simple.
-
Who takes that final decision? Or if both think that they are the perfect ones to lead, and hence their his/her decision must be implemented, what if that decision is very very important and no one wants to let go off it ?
siki
The more stubborn one, because disagreements can go on forever and, well, someone has to give in at some point. D
A marriage should not have to be like a corporation with a "captain/CEO" making all final decisions but rather more like a partnership.
Partnership A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal.
And that goal is, of course, the happiness of the wife... ;D
As Marleya points out, a partnership IS possible.
peace
Peace.
I look around me,and see muslim couples manage themselves,without,no obedience from non.I see couples discuss,and come to a mutual agreement,without nobody have to obey the other.
I dont think a marrige is a ship,that are in need of one captain,there are two adults involved,and mutual agreements,must be the basic.Then there will be no chaos.To be a captain on a ship,you need education,so on a boat it is the person best fit to rule a ship,that is the captain.
Marrige in Islam,is a contract,with mutual benefits.
Every buisness beetween equals,is done with mutual agreement,why is that different,when a woman is involved?She has to be obedient?
No,it is the same old,same old,thinking that a man,is always better equipted,than women,in deeling with life and truth,even when the reality shows us different.Men that kill their wifes,and dont think they are few,79% of all women gets killed by a man that they are in relationship with,or has been.Very often,this men are used to obedience from their wifes,and when they dont,bam.And the men belong to every corner in this world,and with religion or not religion.
Muslim countries have choosen not to deal with their honory killings,that happen every day.Obedience is a key word here,in this sad storys,where men think that if a lady disobey,and by that deforme tha family honour,they can be killed.Jordan for example,have in their criminal laws,the reduced sentences,for husbands,brothers,fathers,that commit this kind of crimes,but most often cases do not go to court.Just forget obedience,and get your minds on mutual agreement.
-
Peace
And what an end TruthSeeker bravo
Thank you, Marleya, but I suspect this discussion is not going to end any time soon...
peace
-
Peace,
Sa'dah,
You have discovered a lesson in the GENERAL nature of the genders and their inter-relationships. Some men are more receptive to womens' suggestions than others (we all have had mothers whom we are told to respect and listen to) but most men have a problem with women weilding authority over them. ANd I think many women don't know how to handle that and (as with many men as well) handle the authority without being demeaning. And in my opinion men and women should NOT be put in these competitive environments with each other. It only leads to resentment and ill-will. Now we all can adapt to situations we don't like if forced to. But we find ourselves ever increasingly in GENERALLY unnatural environments, and it can cause more problems than need be. I don't think any "liberated" woman will accept the nature of this dynamic and respond accordingly and the times certain don't call for us to have more natural relationships with each other. Women IN GENERAL seem to lash back and attack (rather illogically and over emotionally) whenever it seems that the integrity of their gender is critiqued in any way. I rarely see men seriously defending our gender. Jokingly we do it all the time, but we know we can't vouch for all the other guys out there. I think a little man solidarity would be nice, but obviously not all men are good men. Cultures may vary in the levels of man solidarity, but it is never on the level of woman-solidarity.
We all just need to act like good drones and work together like a Borg society accordin to mainstream society. But that is breaking up our society and our families frankly. It's creating women who are unsuitable for relationships with men and it is causing men to rebel against taking on manly responsibilities which can be undermined and competed for by the one he is trying to care for. Or sometimes these men do not learn them at all, because they grow up feeling undervalued and not needed as men.
My observations have been that men are more principal/philosophy oriented and are more cool-headed in comparison, and women are more pratical- oriented (they want to see those earthly goods needed for survival) and will sacrifice all in order to survive, while also being more emotional and irrational in comparison. These are generals, there are always the grey individuals and everyone has their moments of principal/philosophy, emotion, cool-headedness and irrationality. But I see that strong (generally unprincipaled) survival instinct making women better workers in the 'cut throat' and 'do as your told' work environments we find ourselves in today. That leaves more principaled/philosophically oriented men in tough situations. Of course if your philsophy IS cut throat and do as your told then there's no problem. And in a society that undermines the role of leadership in men and gladly gives it to a woman if she is a better drone . . . Well, that is a recipe for disaster. The woman might see it as liberating but her personal relationships with men suffer greatly because of the outlook that has been encouraged for her to have. And men grow bitter and less tolerant, unless they have some good distractions going on (video games, sports, or they make good money and happen to be the leader in the situation which will mitigate some of the problems that would ensue were he on the underside of the coin).
But I think the Quran strikes a good balance in setting up the man as a leader in his family and in the community but also demanding that he have his ears open, be retrospective, look out for the interest of, and care for the women and children in his family and community as he would look out for himself (ba'dukum min ba'din). And I think the strengths and weakness that men and women have respectively lend towards a more successful family unit and society if a woman is obedient (or biblically submissive) to the men in her life. UNLESS God is on her side and not on the men's side. And in the case where the men disagree (brothers, fathers and grown sons). Well, whoever makes the most sense and has God on his side is to be heeded. But none of that honor-killing stuff. If my sister, daughter or mother were on the path to Hell, i have NO right to try to speed that up. All I can do is pray that they are guided and be there for them when they are in need out of respect for the bond of blood. I think women are to be respected as human beings and never abused. I also think women have valuable experiences that should be utilized where needed and heeded. But I do not think men and women should be competing against each other in society or within the family. And the Quran helps to strike a balance that is good for the men and the women who choose to follow its guidance. Those who don't choose to follow it, can do as they like. Unfortunately the socieiteis we co-exist in are usually non Quranic (sometimes even our very families belong more to these societies than to the Quran), and ARE doing as they like. But we have to resist the temptation to go with the status-quo and live the Quran in our personal lives at the very least. A Quranic community would help us live by the Quran in a better way, but I don't see that dream Quranic community coming along any time soon. Although I would love to see it one day. Until then I'll ask God for patience, ask Him to protect me from Satan and his friends and I'll keep on trucking, and trying to earn my place in Paradise when the Good Lord decides to take me.
I have no god but God. Praises be to Him! (I really see God as an 'It' but that is a linguistic lesson I don't want to give right now).
Five stars.
-
I see around, I see common men and women. People married for many years, muslims or non muslims, and what I see in marriages that have lasted a long time is that nobody gives a damn about such a henpecking order. They go about their business, have their little disputes, shout a little over each other, recriminate each other from time to time or every five minutes, depends, and carry along happily and contentedly without ever occurring to them to ask themselves who is in charge or who shoulde be in charge. I find weird that some men find it so endearing to have it stated that marriage needs a chief that that chief should be them. I find it pitiful in a way. So desperate for acknowledgement are they? Do they feel so worthless by themselves without the prop of chieftanship? Why? Because finally, if chieyftainship is pretended and not acknowledged they will have to become tyrants to make it stick or they will have to forget it. I guess the happy ones forget it and hold privately their chieftainship fantasy and the really hopeless ones end up with a broken marriage. In a relationship between equals preminence is doom.
Salam
-
I see around, I see common men and women. People married for many years, muslims or non muslims, and what I see in marriages that have lasted a long time is that nobody gives a damn about such a henpecking order. They go about their business, have their little disputes, shout a little over each other, recriminate each other from time to time or every five minutes, depends, and carry along happily and contentedly without ever occurring to them to ask themselves who is in charge or who shoulde be in charge. I find weird that some men find it so endearing to have it stated that marriage needs a chief that that chief should be them. I find it pitiful in a way. So desperate for acknowledgement are they? Do they feel so worthless by themselves without the prop of chieftanship? Why? Because finally, if chieyftainship is pretended and not acknowledged they will have to become tyrants to make it stick or they will have to forget it. I guess the happy ones forget it and hold privately their chieftainship fantasy and the really hopeless ones end up with a broken marriage. In a relationship between equals preminence is doom.
Salam
bravo
-
I see around, I see common men and women. People married for many years, muslims or non muslims, and what I see in marriages that have lasted a long time is that nobody gives a damn about such a henpecking order. They go about their business, have their little disputes, shout a little over each other, recriminate each other from time to time or every five minutes, depends, and carry along happily and contentedly without ever occurring to them to ask themselves who is in charge or who shoulde be in charge. I find weird that some men find it so endearing to have it stated that marriage needs a chief that that chief should be them. I find it pitiful in a way. So desperate for acknowledgement are they? Do they feel so worthless by themselves without the prop of chieftanship? Why? Because finally, if chieyftainship is pretended and not acknowledged they will have to become tyrants to make it stick or they will have to forget it. I guess the happy ones forget it and hold privately their chieftainship fantasy and the really hopeless ones end up with a broken marriage. In a relationship between equals preminence is doom.
Salam
You forgot to provide us with some reference to these marriages.
Anyway, what I know of is, that marriages with an individual that has no ability or training to be a boss but is told that they should be a boss, just become bossy. And when someone accepts a boss in a relationship, those subordinates some how become reliant on that ill trained boss. I have personally experienced that. But only with individuals who were not at all trained in either Islamic knowledge or even Quranic knowledge, just their home grown 'translators' knowledge, and themselves love to part of non-islamic societies.
As for the term broken marriages... isn't that a christian term that doesn't exist as divorces are allowed in Islam?